Kevin O'Leary's Take On Bitcoin!

[mikehersh2]

Kevin O’Leary gives his take on Bitcoin!

https://youtu.be/SmjUvdJdlDM


This is a clip from a recent CNBC program, where Anthony Pompliano is discussing the recent rise in BTC value. Kevin O'Leary joins Anthony at the desk, and gives his take on Bitcoin as a whole.

As you’ll notice, Kevin is quite critical of Bitcoin. Yet, Anthony Pompliano brings up some interesting points to challenge Kevin.

I found this debate extremely interesting, and while the video is only a 7 minute clip, I thought I’d include some footnotes from their discussion….


Anthony Pompliano states that as institutions as well as retail are beginning to involve themselves with bitcoin and the blockchain, we are seeing highs in the volume across all cryptocurrencies.

He also credits the trade war, as BTC might represent a safe haven of currencies for those who feel unsettled by the trade war.
-He is hopeful that prices will continue to rise with the halving under a year away.
-Explains to Kevin that it reminds people that there is a limited number of BTC
-He refers to bitcoin “disruptive technology”
- Goes on to argue that bitcoin is a belief system, just as the US Dollar is
   - for two people who exchange bitcoin, it has value to each of them

Kevin mocks the halving, saying that it is too arbitrary.
-Goes on to denounce BTC further, saying it is “nothing but raw speculation” and is too volatile
-No interest
-Cant pay taxes
-Regulators don’t like it
-No long term value

Anthony Pompliano Rebuttals

-Says BTC is best performing asset in last decade
Contradicts Kevin’s statements by saying that BTC is a better store of value, more transparent, secure. In fact. regulators prefer it because criminal activity can be tracked and is more traceable as the ledger is public.

“Why can’t I pay my taxes with it?” Kevin asks.

-Anthony proceeds to point out that you actually can use it to pay taxes in the state of Ohio

Kevin continues to bring up points…
“All boats should rise with the water, not just bitcoin.” he says.

Anthony then concludes with this final argument as to why Kevin should invest in BTC-
“Bitcoin is a non-correlated, asymmetric return asset that the value drivers of your equities are tied to earnings, GDP, interest rates, etc.”

Other reporter- “Well the problem is Bitcoin isn’t tied to anything”

Anthony- “Neither is the US Dollar”

Unfortunately… Kevin’s mind remains unchanged, as he still declares Bitcoin to be “garbage”.


I’d love to know what you guys think of this debate. What are some points that were brought up that you found interesting?
Personally, Anthony Pompliano did an awesome job providing valid arguments for the seemingly know-it-all Mr. Wonderful.

[1713547402]

1713547402

[1713547402]

1713547402

[1713547402]

1713547402

[franky1]

Anthony Pompliano states that
- Goes on to argue that bitcoin is a belief system, just as the US Dollar is
   - for two people who exchange bitcoin, it has value to each of them

Kevin mocks the halving, saying that it is too arbitrary.
-Goes on to denounce BTC further, saying it is “nothing but raw speculation” and is too volatile

Other reporter- “Well the problem is Bitcoin isn’t tied to anything”

seems 3 people have no clue.
firstly we all know gold has utility value. (circuits and jewellery) and ontop of that it actually costs more than 1cent to get it out of the ground.

imagine gold, exact same utility value, but anyone and his dog could mine gold using a cutlery spoon and a coffee filter in their own back yard. i guarantee you gold would be much much cheaper to buy because it only costs pennies to acquire from other means.

same with bitcoin the mining cost is not PoS(free) its PoW(costly) so bitcoin has underlying value based on cost of creation, so saying bitcoin is backed by nothing is hilarious
saying bitcoin is valued by only 2 people agreeing on a random price is hilarious.

seems people dont understand basic economics

[Beerwizzard]

seems people dont understand basic economics

Sure. All those investors from TV know nothing about economics.

Anthony Pompliano states that
- Goes on to argue that bitcoin is a belief system, just as the US Dollar is
   - for two people who exchange bitcoin, it has value to each of them

Kevin mocks the halving, saying that it is too arbitrary.
-Goes on to denounce BTC further, saying it is “nothing but raw speculation” and is too volatile

Other reporter- “Well the problem is Bitcoin isn’t tied to anything”

seems 3 people have no clue.
firstly we all know gold has utility value. (circuits and jewellery) and ontop of that it actually costs more than 1cent to get it out of the ground.

imagine gold, exact same utility value, but anyone and his dog could mine gold using a cutlery spoon and a coffee filter in their own back yard. i guarantee you gold would be much much cheaper to buy because it only costs pennies to acquire from other means.

same with bitcoin the mining cost is not PoS(free) its PoW(costly) so bitcoin has underlying value based on cost of creation, so saying bitcoin is backed by nothing is hilarious
saying bitcoin is valued by only 2 people agreeing on a random price is hilarious.

seems people dont understand basic economics

The problem of comparison of BTC with gold is that Bitcoin is not gold and vice versa. And this is why all those "bitcoin killer" shitcoins will never become popular. If someone made something with some shit with values that are similar to gold it doesn't mean that people have to buy it.

About statements of those guys from the quote above:
1. Saying that USD is based on belief is a pure populism and just a stupid statement.
2. This is a fair point. BTC is realy a pure speculation. Hopefully with its further growth volatility would be lower.
3. That's the problem only if you are trying to evaluate BTC the same way as people do with stocks. Maybe cryptocurrencies need some other calculation methods.

[davis196]

Why Kevin O'Leary is so obsessed with paying taxes with bitcoin.
There's nothing new to this pro-bitcoin vs. anti-bitcoin discussion.All the shit about "the regulators don't like crypto,you can't buy food with crypto,it's just a bunch of code and nothing more".
We heard that shit before and many people believe it.
Just move on and ignore this nonsense.

[Yakamoto]

seems people dont understand basic economics

Sure. All those investors from TV know nothing about economics.

Do you know most of the personalities on TV? Even those who study economics usually end up on TV because they can be sensationalist but they otherwise suck at their job. It's not like being educated in something and then being on TV makes someone smarter, because there's a lot of braindead graduates from post-secondary these days that think their degree gives them the brains they so desperately lack.

<quote snipped>
The problem of comparison of BTC with gold is that Bitcoin is not gold and vice versa. And this is why all those "bitcoin killer" shitcoins will never become popular. If someone made something with some shit with values that are similar to gold it doesn't mean that people have to buy it.

About statements of those guys from the quote above:
1. Saying that USD is based on belief is a pure populism and just a stupid statement.
2. This is a fair point. BTC is realy a pure speculation. Hopefully with its further growth volatility would be lower.
3. That's the problem only if you are trying to evaluate BTC the same way as people do with stocks. Maybe cryptocurrencies need some other calculation methods.

The USD (along with fiat currencies in general) is literally based on the trust of the people that it will be usable and retain its value the next day. So long as that belief exists, so does the currency. If suddenly half the country didn't accept the USD anymore, the government would have to force them to accept it (which could lead to rebellion, which the gov't at large would lose) or a shaky belief in the currency is reinstated.

As for everything else, I more or less agree with you. There won't be any Bitcoin killers because their communities will never get remotely close to that which Bitcoin has. Ethereum was probably the best shot, and that petered out lol.

[Beerwizzard]

Do you know most of the personalities on TV? Even those who study economics usually end up on TV because they can be sensationalist but they otherwise suck at their job. It's not like being educated in something and then being on TV makes someone smarter, because there's a lot of braindead graduates from post-secondary these days that think their degree gives them the brains they so desperately lack.

Warren Buffett is also can be seen on similar shows. But it doesn't mean that he is a bad investor.

Anyway, many of those people that talk about market trends on TV don't have to be successful traders. It not always correlates with knowledge. Generally, if someone  is saying that he is making 1000% a year then it would rather be a bad trader.

The USD (along with fiat currencies in general) is literally based on the trust of the people that it will be usable and retain its value the next day. So long as that belief exists, so does the currency. If suddenly half the country didn't accept the USD anymore, the government would have to force them to accept it (which could lead to rebellion, which the gov't at large would lose) or a shaky belief in the currency is reinstated.

As for everything else, I more or less agree with you. There won't be any Bitcoin killers because their communities will never get remotely close to that which Bitcoin has. Ethereum was probably the best shot, and that petered out lol.

USD is backed by obligation of the federal government to collect trillions of dollars in taxes from residents and companies that operate in the united states. Those money are making USD stable, not someone else's blind trust.

[Genemind]

Why Kevin O'Leary is so obsessed with paying taxes with bitcoin.
There's nothing new to this pro-bitcoin vs. anti-bitcoin discussion.All the shit about "the regulators don't like crypto,you can't buy food with crypto,it's just a bunch of code and nothing more".
We heard that shit before and many people believe it.
Just move on and ignore this nonsense.

That's what I noticed as well. He's to narrow to think that Bitcoin only functions to pay taxes.
We couldn't recognize the success of Bitcoin is just a single thing that it couldn't do.
Accepting taxes with Btc still depends on the government.
There will always be unendless debate if one person is close minded.

[figmentofmyass]

same with bitcoin the mining cost is not PoS(free) its PoW(costly) so bitcoin has underlying value based on cost of creation, so saying bitcoin is backed by nothing is hilarious

that doesn't agree with the subjective theory of value. if nobody values above $0.00 what miners are spending electricity on, bitcoins are worth precisely nothing. the fact that miners have sunk costs doesn't create demand nor value. it doesn't create buyers.

you think investors are trying to deduce the average cost of mining and evaluating price based on that? lol.....

[yohananaomi]

Why Kevin O'Leary is so obsessed with paying taxes with bitcoin.
There's nothing new to this pro-bitcoin vs. anti-bitcoin discussion.All the shit about "the regulators don't like crypto,you can't buy food with crypto,it's just a bunch of code and nothing more".
We heard that shit before and many people believe it.
Just move on and ignore this nonsense.

That's what I noticed as well. He's to narrow to think that Bitcoin only functions to pay taxes.
We couldn't recognize the success of Bitcoin is just a single thing that it couldn't do.
Accepting taxes with Btc still depends on the government.
There will always be unendless debate if one person is close minded.

What is said to affect Bitcoin? as long as it does not have any impact, it is said that it will not affect those who are indeed investors. because there are many who give a statment about bitcoin but bitcoin continues to run as usual and bitcoin is currently excited

[Theb]

Surprised that even in main stream media you can see how close minded can people get when it comes to Bitcoin. Anthony Pompliano just got victimized by a no coiner that even if he contradicted all his opinion he got shutdown by ending the conversation with Kevin's opinion of BTC being a garbage. Just by seeing how Kevin went with his flawed reasonings shows that he doesn't really have any knowledge at all on what he is talking about, he is just another man trying to look smart in front of the masses.

[franky1]

same with bitcoin the mining cost is not PoS(free) its PoW(costly) so bitcoin has underlying value based on cost of creation, so saying bitcoin is backed by nothing is hilarious

that doesn't agree with the subjective theory of value. if nobody values above $0.00 what miners are spending electricity on, bitcoins are worth precisely nothing. the fact that miners have sunk costs doesn't create demand nor value. it doesn't create buyers.

you think investors are trying to deduce the average cost of mining and evaluating price based on that? lol.....

investors are not deducing the average cost, the mining/market dynamics is always at play
heres a few points

VALUE is not PRICE
VALUE is multlayered.
imagine bitcoins $8k
what if i told you:
$0-$5k was the cost/mining value
$5k-$6k was the utility value
$6k-$8k was the FOMO speculative/hype/bubble value

again if you took away the cost/acquisition. but still had utility then the price would not be $8k
same with gold, if people could mine gold using a spoon and a coffee filter, gold would not b at $1k. even if gold still retained the same utility.

saying that bitcoin is just 100% hype/bubble/speculation shows they dont understand basic economics.. even you admit without utility or cost no one would buy it because:
1. if theres no cost, its free
2. if there is no utility, no one will want it

hre is why the value is not just some random number picked out of a hat by 2 people but is based on a few underlying things

what happens is once the hype /fomo corrects down, people then look at the cost they acquired it for and refuse to sell for less, which given enough time reaches a certain equilibrium. for instance winters mining costs were around $3500 and there were months of opertunities for people who previously bought early on below $3500 to sell out.

those new purchasrs bought at over $3500 and so now more people wont want to sell for under $3500 again because they had their chances and now there are more people holding coin valued at over $3500 than before winter

[Ailmand]

There's no sense in debating with someone who doesn't believe in crypto. It doesn't even make him smarter to call Bitcoin a garbage. Bitcoin would defend and speaks for itself through its works and success. Those people who are trying to put Bitcoin down would realize and regret things that they're saying about BTC.

[alina345]

It seems like Billionaires all over the world have been recommending Bitcoin. I can tell why and it's no mystery that many of them are already in possession of a large stash.

[seoincorporation]

Madia talking like this about bitcoin will only bring more bump on the coin, we all know the story... bitcoin bump, it hit the sky, then media start talking sweet things about it, and then it crash, there is when media start saying bitcoin is a bubble, and this cicle repeats each 2 years, lol.

[TimeBits]

Lol he thinks CAD and USD is real money. This is a goblin not a man.



Where is the intrinsic value of USD or CAD, BUD?

My least favorite dragon on dragons den btw. They should rename the show to dumbass den.

More mainstream media brainwashing, I need to stay away from this stuff, the more I watch it the more my brain starts to bleed.

[pushups44]

O'Leary comes across as a pompous jerk who speaks about topics of which he has little knowledge. So he bought near the peak of the bull market and then lost 70%, and then forms an opinion on said asset based on his bad timing. He should stick to his TV show.

[figmentofmyass]

that doesn't agree with the subjective theory of value. if nobody values above $0.00 what miners are spending electricity on, bitcoins are worth precisely nothing. the fact that miners have sunk costs doesn't create demand nor value. it doesn't create buyers.

you think investors are trying to deduce the average cost of mining and evaluating price based on that? lol.....

investors are not deducing the average cost, the mining/market dynamics is always at play

heres a few points

VALUE is not PRICE
VALUE is multlayered.
imagine bitcoins $8k
what if i told you:
$0-$5k was the cost/mining value
$5k-$6k was the utility value
$6k-$8k was the FOMO speculative/hype/bubble value

again if you took away the cost/acquisition. but still had utility then the price would not be $8k
same with gold, if people could mine gold using a spoon and a coffee filter, gold would not b at $1k. even if gold still retained the same utility.

you're just making up random numbers that don't apply in any relevant way. before bitcoin crashed to $3k, you said the $6k average mining cost was a "floor" for the price. what a crock of shit, lol!

i told you back then, and i'm telling you now, the mining market doesn't dictate anything. it simply lags behind the spot market. miners are just speculative investors just like the rest of us. and when the price plunges below their cost of acquisition, it affects them just like it affects us when we are underwater: we liquidate to cover losses.

what happens is once the hype /fomo corrects down, people then look at the cost they acquired it for and refuse to sell for less

that's your fundamental problem. you operate under this bizarre fallacy where investors can endless sink capital into an underwater investment without ever liquidating. that's simply not how investment works, including mining investment.

[CryptoBry]

Nothing interesting actually here. We have already all of these arguments in the past and we know the answers to many objections of bitcoin critics. At the end of the day, it is about belief...that belief that bitcoin is much better than the dollar (which is also based on faith). However, it is good to know that this is being brought up now in the media and we know that the more people talk about something then the more other people can be interested with it.

What is obvious here is that there are many bitcoin critics who are not researching well and they must admit that they are just using their gut feeling about it and arguing not based on facts. Let us all thank Anthony Pompliano for defending bitcoin in the face of those who continually doubt about it.

[squatz1]

Why Kevin O'Leary is so obsessed with paying taxes with bitcoin.
There's nothing new to this pro-bitcoin vs. anti-bitcoin discussion.All the shit about "the regulators don't like crypto,you can't buy food with crypto,it's just a bunch of code and nothing more".
We heard that shit before and many people believe it.
Just move on and ignore this nonsense.

I do understand why he's obsessed wiith this, it's because in his mind this is what is showing 'real large-scale adoption' I would have to agree, though I'm expecting Bitcoin-related payments to be allowed on a state by state basis. Doubt the federal government will ever allow such a thing (unless they notice that they're losing out on tax revenue, which they aren't)

Nothing interesting actually here. We have already all of these arguments in the past and we know the answers to many objections of bitcoin critics. At the end of the day, it is about belief...that belief that bitcoin is much better than the dollar (which is also based on faith). However, it is good to know that this is being brought up now in the media and we know that the more people talk about something then the more other people can be interested with it.

What is obvious here is that there are many bitcoin critics who are not researching well and they must admit that they are just using their gut feeling about it and arguing not based on facts. Let us all thank Anthony Pompliano for defending bitcoin in the face of those who continually doubt about it.

Yup. These are competing ideals that would even be as deeply rooted as religion. There's no real way to convince the other side that you're right and that they're wrong. Though I do have to agree a good deal of the bitcoin critics have no clue about Bitcoin, they just read clickbaity titles from MSM companies about it and use that as fact.

[jseverson]

I’d love to know what you guys think of this debate. What are some points that were brought up that you found interesting?
Personally, Anthony Pompliano did an awesome job providing valid arguments for the seemingly know-it-all Mr. Wonderful.

It's just like any other online debate. Two people with preconceived and immovable notions speak their mind try to change the other person's mind. It doesn't matter what the facts are, it only matters what people want to believe.

That being said, more people are probably in line with Kevin O’Leary's thinking. If nothing else, this shows that we have a long road ahead of us.